Planning · Research · Camden
Camden Householder Planning Decisions: 2025 Data Study
A reproducible analysis of Camden’s 2025 householder decision records — what was granted, refused or withdrawn, how long records ran, and what the figures cannot predict.
Data snapshot
2025 Camden householder decisions at a glance
Householder records with a 2025 decision date
Grant-related share of grant/refusal-related outcomes
Median valid-from-to-decision interval
Records naming a conservation area
Source: London Borough of Camden — Planning Applications open dataset. Snapshot checked . Open the reproducible source query.
What this study counted
We queried Camden’s official Planning Applications open dataset on 23 August 2026. The filter retained records whose application type is “Householder Application” and whose decision date falls from 1 January to 31 December 2025. It returned 442 records. The reproducible query is linked in the data snapshot and primary sources below.
This is a study of Camden’s published records, not of this practice’s applications. It contains no claimed project history and no inference about an individual property. The source dataset is published by the London Borough of Camden under the Open Government Licence.
Recorded outcomes: 347 grant-related, 59 refusal-related, 36 withdrawn
We grouped every decision label beginning “Granted” as grant-related. That includes 335 plain grants, nine grants subject to a Section 106 legal agreement and three grants carrying a warning of enforcement action. Labels beginning “Refused”, plus two “Non-Determination: would have refused” records, form the refusal-related group. The remaining 36 records are withdrawals.
Among the 406 grant-related or refusal-related records, 85.5% are grant-related. That is a description of this dataset, not an applicant success rate. It does not control for proposal quality, amendments, pre-application work, repeat submissions, conditions, agent, property constraints or whether a scheme was materially reduced before decision.
The median published interval was 56 calendar days
For each record we subtracted valid_from_date from decision_date. Of 442 records, 441 produced a non-negative interval; one data anomaly was excluded. The median was 56 calendar days and 232 records — 52.6% of the valid intervals — were at or below 56 days. Thirteen records exceeded 365 days and remain in the underlying distribution rather than being silently discarded.
The interval is not a service promise and it is not a complete measure of council performance. The dataset does not identify written extensions of time, pauses for amendments or every procedural event. Government guidance sets eight weeks for non-major applications unless a longer period is agreed in writing, so the same elapsed time can represent different procedural histories.
A conservation-area label appears on four in five records
The conservation_areas field is populated on 357 of the 442 records, or 80.8%. Within those records, 286 outcomes are grant-related, 40 refusal-related and 31 withdrawn. Among the 85 records without a conservation-area label, 61 are grant-related, 19 refusal-related and five withdrawn.
The grant-related share is higher in the conservation-labelled subset, but that does not mean conservation status makes consent easier. The groups contain different properties and proposals, and the dataset does not measure design quality or amendments. The useful conclusion is narrower: conservation context is normal, not exceptional, in Camden householder work and should be checked at the start.
Extensions, roofs and openings dominate the descriptions
A case-insensitive whole-word scan of the published development descriptions found “extension” in 216 records, a roof/loft/dormer/rooflight/mansard term in 191, and a window/door/fenestration term in 186. Solar or heat-pump terms appear in 33 records; basement and outbuilding terms each appear in 26.
These categories overlap because one application can include an extension, roof alteration and new windows. They are not application-type counts and should not be added together. They show why coordinated elevations, roof plans and existing/proposed drawings recur across Camden validation packs.
What the data cannot tell you
The records cannot predict whether a new proposal will be approved. They do not score design quality, identify every negotiation, explain all conditions, isolate resubmissions or show whether an application followed pre-application advice. A grant-related label can still carry conditions and does not confirm that the approved work was built.
Open-data fields can also be corrected after publication. This page freezes the analysis date and exposes the exact source query so later readers can reproduce the selection and identify any subsequent source changes.
How to use the snapshot before drawings start
Use the figures to set questions, not expectations: confirm the correct local planning authority; check conservation area, listing and Article 4 status for the address; review the planning history; then match the drawing and evidence pack to the actual proposal. Our Camden extension planning guide explains that property-level sequence.
For a live project, a planning feasibility review should test the address and proposal before a headline borough percentage is allowed to shape a design or budget.
Frequently asked questions
Does an 85.5% grant-related share mean my Camden project has that chance?
Why does the study say grant-related rather than approved?
Were Camden conservation-area applications more likely to be granted?
How long did Camden householder decisions take in 2025?
Can I inspect the records behind the figures?
Explore further
Related services and areas
Related services
Related areas
Need drawings or planning advice for your property?
Tell us the property address, type and what you are considering. We will advise the likely route — planning, building regulations, or both — and what information will be needed.